Holkesvig v. Welte
Randy Holkesvig, Plaintiff and Appellant
Peter David Welte, Defendant and Appellee
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Grand Forks County
Judge Steven L. Marquart
|Nature of Action:||Other (Civil)|
|Term:||10/2012  Argument: 10/24/2012|
|ND cite:||2012 ND 236|
823 N.W.2d 786
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Did Randy Holkesvig intentionally, willfully and inexcusably disobey a District Court Order that was issued by Judge Wickham Corwin?
II. Did Judge Marquart intentionally, willfully and inexcusably abuse his discretions with his Order/Ruling issued on 3-30-12 that indicates there is illegal, immoral and unethical sanction fines being applied against me?
Reply Brief Issues
I. Did Judges Corwin and Marquart legally inform me with a notice of my constitutional right to appointed counsel in a contempt proceeding from 3-31-11 and 3-28-12?
II. Did the Plaintiff prove his claims have merit and were not frivolous and the Defendants are not entitled to any relief?
III. Are issues not briefed by an appellee deemed to be conceded and waived and considered to be true facts?
IV. Should a new trial be granted because serious injustice has occurred?
V. Should Attorney's fees should be awarded to Appellant?
VI. Is Article XI, Section 4 of the ND State Constitution legal and valid?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the trial court properly find Plaintiff in contempt of court after the trial court ordered no further pleadings or documents of any kind were to be filed and Plaintiff repeatedly filed post-judgment pleadings and documents in violation of the trial court's orders?
II. Is Plaintiff improperly attempting to re-litigate the merits of the underlying civil case, which was dismissed by the trial court, because Plaintiff's arguments focus on the underlying court order dismissing Plaintiff's claims and not the finding and order for contempt?
III. Are Defendants entitled to damages and costs of the appeal in accordance with Rule 38 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure because Plaintiff's appeal is repetitious and completely devoid of merit?
|Add Docket 20120203 RSS|
|1||04/24/2012 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 04/24/2012|
|2||04/24/2012 This case is consolidated w/20120204 & 20120205. Make all docket entries in this case except|
|3||04/24/2012 ROA, DIS & MAN|
|4||04/26/2012 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL (ENTRY NOS 1-273) certified in Supreme Court No. 20110373|
|5||04/27/2012 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 04/27/2012|
|6||05/02/2012 Motion to Corr. and Refund Appeal Fees and to Corr. the Legal Advice Rec. from Clerks of Sup.Ct.|
|7||05/02/2012 E-FILED MOTION|
|8||05/07/2012 "Objection to Partial Satisfaction of Judgement of Dismissal and Proposed Order on Appeal Costs|
|9||05/07/2012 and Expenses" by Appellant -- put in file|
|10||05/09/2012 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Motion to Corr. and Refund Appeal Fees and to Corr. the Leg. Advice Rec.). Denied|
|11||05/09/2012 Filing Fees Received (Rec. 21171)|
|12||05/09/2012 Order/Judgment Sent to Parties|
|13||05/14/2012 TRANSCRIPT DATED March 28, 2012 & C.O.S.|
|14||05/14/2012 DISK - TRA dated March 28, 2012 (e-mailed)|
|15||05/29/2012 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 05/25/2012(ENTRY NOS.1-328, Items not sent 146,148,181,182,226)|
|16||06/05/2012 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|17||06/05/2012 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 07/23/2012|
|18||06/06/2012 1st ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED June 5, 2012 (ENTRY NOS. 329 - 331)|
|19||06/13/2012 2nd ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 06/12/2012 (ENTRY NOS.332-334)|
|20||06/08/2012 MOTION TO REQUEST RECONSIDERATION BY APPELLANT|
|21||06/20/2012 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (adhere to previous action). Denied|
|22||07/09/2012 APPELLANT BRIEF (corrected ATB filed 7-16-12)|
|23||07/09/2012 APPELLANT APPENDIX #1|
|24||07/16/2012 MOTION to Correct Appeal Brief & Include Appendix #2 to Modify|
|25||07/16/2012 Corrections as Requested|
|26||07/16/2012 NO ACTION TAKEN|
|27||07/16/2012 Corrected Appellant's Brief (TOA & pages corrected)|
|28||07/16/2012 DISK - atb (e-mailed)|
|29||07/16/2012 Additional Appendix #1|
|30||07/16/2012 APPELLANT APPENDIX #2|
|31||07/16/2012 3rd ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 07/13/2012 (ENTRY NOS.335-339)|
|32||08/10/2012 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|33||08/10/2012 E-FILED BRIEF|
|34||08/10/2012 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|35||08/10/2012 E-FILED APPENDIX|
|36||08/13/2012 Received surcharge for AEB (Receipt #21299)|
|37||08/14/2012 Received 7 copies of AEB from CSD|
|38||08/14/2012 Received 6 copies of AEA from CSD|
|39||08/14/2012 4th ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 8/13/2012 (ENTRY NOS.343-344)|
|40||08/16/2012 MOTION FOR REMAND|
|41||08/17/2012 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Denied|
|42||08/21/2012 MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF|
|43||08/21/2012 E-FILED MOTION|
|44||08/22/2012 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 08/29/2012|
|45||08/17/2012 5th ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 8/16/12 (ENTRY NOS. 345-346)|
|46||08/26/2012 DISK - RYB (e-mailed)|
|47||08/27/2012 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant|
|48||09/17/2012 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|49||10/16/2012 S.CT. DETERMINED ORAL ARGUMENT NOT NECESSARY|
|50||10/24/2012 APPEARANCES: Waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)|
|52||11/27/2012 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED BY SUMMARY DISP.|
|53||11/27/2012 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Per Curiam|
|54||11/27/2012 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellees|
|55||11/28/2012 Judgment Sent to Parties|
|56||11/30/2012 PETITION FOR REHEARING|
|57||11/30/2012 DISK - PER|
|58||12/18/2012 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied|
|59||12/21/2012 MOTION TO STAY THE COURT'S MANDATE PENDING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI|
|60||12/21/2012 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 01/18/2013|
|61||01/02/2013 MOTION TO STAY THE COURT'S MANDATE PENDING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI|
|62||01/02/2013 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Granted: 03/21/2013|
|63||03/19/2013 Notice of Filing Petition for Writ of Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court|
|64||05/17/2013 Notice from U.S. Supreme Court that Petition for Writ of Certiorari is denied|
|66||07/26/2013 Received notice that petition for rehearing to U.S. Supreme Court denied|